Yes it is often forgotten how many people on the 'old' left like Foot supported action against Argentina. Foot was a great intellectual but not a great leader alas.
Foot was more keen to go to war with Argentina than Thatcher was! The government he was a part of in 1977 had also seen off an Argentine threat preemptively. The Argentine government was making the same kind of overtures in 1982 without Britain responding in a manner which would make the war less likely.
The elegance and clarity of Michael Foot's opposition speech (over such a monumental matter) is something any modern-day politician or public speaker might be advised to study.
Michael foot was a towering inferno of intellect ,his genuine compassion allowed him to stand along side those left on the outside of conversation ,foot will never be forgotten ,he was the polar opposite to the thatcherites yet he could never galvinise support from the ordinary middle classes ,
He ran out of steam a bit at the end but I agree today's politicians are no match for him and attention spans have waned anyway. He was flattered by the radio medium.
That's actually quite rude I believe towards the huge amount of MPs in the commons who are of great substance, such as Hillary Benn, Jacob Rees-Mogg etc etc
That's two out of 650. There are a handful of others such as Dennis Skinner: the rest are pale imitations of the 1960s and 1970s figures and I can only assume you're too young to remember them.
More than a generation ago we had educated, intelligent statesmen (and women) in parliament. Now we have a rabble. Fishwives and scoundrels - the uneducated self serving rabble represent us now.
Foot was the right man but in the wrong moment. When we hear the party leaders from a generation ago it just makes one sad for what passes for leadership today
I am lab and I didn't like Michael foot's left leanings but I really respected him and he had so much intelligence and gravitas, compared to the left under corbyn who was like a very bad Bambi !! , Foot will be missed !!!
Foot was a brilliant orator and a formidable intellect. It was unlikely he would have ever been elected as PM by middle England. He was I think a more natural Cabinet minister.
Michael Foot was a Politician the Torys always wished was one of theirs. I have been a Tory for 50 years, but I always had a huge respect for Michael Foot, loathed his Politics, but the UK would be a richer place if he were around now. He died March 2010 age 96.
Foot could have the best of both worlds that day. He could condemn the invasion and tell the Falklanders he supported them. He could also blame the government for the invasion. Basically, "This is all the government's fault, but don't worry, we'll help get the Falklands back. But remember, it's the government's fault."
Although i disagree with Mr Foot's stance on this matter, one has to admire this man's oration. A far cry from the useless leader of the opposition of today who may well look all smart and dandy, yet possess hardly any of the acumen this much derided politician once had.
When politicians knew how to make speeches! Both in content, manner, and in NOT shirking from holding the government to account in a statesman like manner.
UK gov. supported the dictatorship. They even sent weapons to Argentina. The only civilians killed in those islands were killed by the task force. Galtieri was in Washington before the war. Some authors say they gave green light to the invasion. The war saved Thatcher's popularity.
Peter Green could you imagine today’s Labour Party to listen to this and not side with our enemies. They would bleat about Argentine human rights etc. They would want the military to be “diverse” and ineffective.
Peron created the Malvinas myth and by '82 Argentina was ready for war. Falklands - Argentina's Imaginary Territory (1 pg):- www.academia.edu/35715281/Falklands_Argentinas_Imaginary_Territory
@@Warriorcats64 Smith was leader for a short period of time so it's difficult to say. He did have one good line: John Major was a "devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government." Years later some Tory would use that line when referring to PM Gordon Brown.
Let's have a look at how British rule and 'moral authority' in Ireland was working out in the lead up to the Malvinas/Falklands War: Wednesday 13 January 1982 Lord Gowrie, then an Northern Ireland Office (NIO) Minister, said that Direct Rule was "very unBritish" and indicated that he personally preferred a form dual citizenship, with Britain and the Republic of Ireland being responsible for the administration of those who considered themselves to be Irish. Monday 15 January 1982 James Prior, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, announced the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry into the sexual abuse of children who lived in the Kincora Boys Home in Belfast. [The Kincora Scandal first broke on 3 April 1980 when three staff members of the Kincora Boys Home, Belfast, were charged with acts of gross indecency. Allegations continued to be made that elements of the security service, civil servants and a number of Loyalists had been involved in the abuse of young boys at Kincora. One of those sentenced was William McGrath who was the leader of a Loyalist paramilitary group called Tara.] Tuesday 19 January 1982 The first meeting of Anglo-Irish Inter-government Council took place. Thursday 21 January 1982 Owen Carron and Danny Morrison, then both members of Sinn Féin (SF), were arrested when they tried to illegally enter the United States of America (USA) from Canada. Both men were later deported back to Canada. Saturday 23 January 1982 Two members of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), a father and son, were shot dead in their home by other UDA members in an internal dispute. Friday 29 January 1982 John McKeague, who had been a prominent Loyalist activist, was shot dead by the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) in his shop, Albertbridge Road, Belfast. Monday 1 February 1982 Representatives of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) held a meeting with James Prior, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and they told him that they were opposed to his policy of 'rolling devolution'. Michael Foot, then leader of the Labour Party, began a three day visit to Northern Ireland. Sunday 7 February 1982 Martin Kyles (19), a Catholic civilian, died two days after being shot by British Soldiers as he travelled ('joy riding') in a stolen car in the grounds of the Royal Victoria Hospital, Falls Road, Belfast. Friday 12 February 1982 Three of the five members of the Committee of Inquiry set up to investigate the Kincora Scandal resigned. They claimed that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) had not dealt with all the major criminal matters surrounding the case. The DeLorean Motor Company laid off 1,100 of its 2,600 workers. [This was a major blow to the economically deprived area of west Belfast.] Monday 15 February 1982 The shipyard Harland and Wolff in Belfast announced that it would lay off 1,000 workers from its workforce of 7,000. Thursday 18 February 1982 James Prior, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, announced that a full public inquiry would take place into the matters surrounding the Kincora Scandal. [Three members of the private inquiry resigned on 12 February 1982.] Friday 19 February 1982 The DeLorean Motor Company was put into receivership. [The remaining jobs were lost when the factory in west Belfast closed in May 1982. The government had provided public funds of £80 million, most of these were lost with the collapse of the company.] Saturday 20 February 1982 Patrick Reynolds (24), then an Officer in the Garda Síochána (the Irish police), was shot dead by the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) when he went to a house in Avonbeg Gardens, Tallaght, Dublin. Tuesday 23 Februay 1982 The Irish Republican Army (IRA) sunk a British coal boat, the St Bedan, in Lough Foyle. Monday 1 March 1982 The British Enkalon company announced that it would close its factory in Antrim with the loss of 850 jobs. Tuesday 2 March 1982 Lord Lowry, then Northern Ireland Lord Chief Justice, was attacked by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as he paid a visit to the Queen's University of Belfast. The IRA fired several shots at Lowry who was not injured but a lecturer at the university was wounded by the gunfire. Thursday 4 March 1982 By-Election in South Belfast item mark Following the killing of Robert Bradford on 14 November 1981 there was a by-election in the constituency of South Belfast to fill the vacant Westminster seat. Martin Smyth, then head of the Orange Order, won the election as a Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) candidate. [The election campaign was marked by antagonism between the UUP and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) who both fielded candidates.] Gerard Tuite, formerly a member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), was arrested in the Republic of Ireland following a period 'on the run'. [Tuite became the first person to be charged in the Republic for offences committed in Britain. He had escaped from Brixton Prison in London on 16 December 1980 where he had been serving a sentence for bombing offences in London in 1978. He was sentenced in July 1982 to 10 years imprisonment.] Friday 5 March 1982 Seamus Morgan (24), a member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), was shot dead by fellow members of the IRA who alleged that he was an informer. His body was found near to Forkhill, County Armagh. Sunday 14 March 1982 John Hume, then leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), said that the plans for 'rolling devolution' were "unworkable". Monday 15 March 1982 Alan McCrum (11), a Protestant boy, was killed and 34 people injured when the Irish Republican Army (IRA) exploded a bomb in Bridge Street, Banbridge, County Down. An inadequate warning had been given. Wednesday 17 March 1982 Charles Haughey, then Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister), paid a visit to the United States of America (USA) as part of St Patrick day celebrations. During the visit he called on the US government to put more pressure on Britain to consider the possibility of Irish unity. Thursday 25 March 1982 The Irish Republican Army (IRA) killed three British Soldiers during a gun attack on Crocus Street, off the Springfield Road in west Belfast. Five other people were injured in the attack. [It was believed that an M-60 machine gun was used in the attack.] Friday 26 March 1982 The Irish Republican Army (IRA) said that it would grant an 'amnesty' to any informers who retracted evidence given to the security forces. Thursday 1 April 1982 Two undercover members of the British Army were shot dead by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as they drove a civilian type van from the joint Army / Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) base in Rosemount, Derry.
Michael Foot was a Marxist through and through. His ideas were as mad and as extreme as Corbyn’s. He was part of a system where the top rate of tax was 98 percent, but also argued for an absolute maximum wage. From memory he believed £26,000 should be limit which is about £150,000 today. A lot, but not enough to encourage the “brightest and the best”. He believed in the absolute power of the Trade Unions, even though the history of unlimited power had been disastrous for the economy with the destruction of most of British industry; and led directly to “the winter of discontent”, with the streets covered in rubbish and the dead unburied After his death, it was revealed he had been in the pay of the Soviet Union.
Rhinarium ;3 I deny it, they have never belonged to Argentina and they never will. The territories were owned by Spain and the independence of Argentina from Spain did not transfer the islands to Argentina. I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.
@@Holeyguagaamoley Well, denying the facts is not healthy, you know? Specially when the fact that the Falkland Islands are an integral territory of the Argentine Republic usurped by the United Kingdom is not only recognized by the international community (the vast majority of the United Nations member states, including European Union and Commonwealth members), every international law expert that studies the question and the Foreign Office itself. The next are British sources only, just to name a few:
@@Holeyguagaamoley Foreign Office, October 16th, 1936: "The difficulty of the position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits." A note dated November 3rd, 1928 from Sir Malcolm Robertson to Sir Ronald Lindsay: "As regards the Falkland Islands, I have always considered, ever since reading de Bernhardt's Foreign Office memorandum of December, 1910, that our claim to the islands was very weak indeed. In point of fact it is based upon force and very little else. This view appears to have been held by successive British governments since Lord Palmerston's days, for they have been at pains to avoid the question's being raised. I realised that the islands are of vital strategic value to us, and that we cannot give them up, however just or unjust our position may be." Preliminary Memorandum issued by the Foreign Office's Investigation Department on September 17th, 1946 concludes: "The British occupation of 1833 was, at the time, an act of unjustifiable aggression which has now acquired the backing of the rights of prescription." (This is correct, except for the prescription part... Prescription cannot be invoked because its possession does not comply with the requirements of prescription: it has not been peaceful, and suffers the initial vice of possession obtained by use of force; nor is it undisputed, as Argentina has never acquiesced to the situation. Also, as Hugo Grotius says in regard to prescription: "time has no productive virtue, nothing is done through time, but rather everything happens in time", meaning that the simple passing of time in itself does not produce a change in a territorial situation.) French jurist Gaston Jeze wrote in 1896: "If in fact, thanks to its power, England triumphs, in law there is no doubt that the Argentine Republic maintains sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands and maintains it for as long as the English usurpation lasts." Julius Goebel Jr., author of the first in-depth research on the dispute, concludes his exhaustive and detailed work supporting the Argentine position stating: "The law which states have so painstakingly wrought to govern their relations is too precious a heritage to be suborned to cover the imperialistic designs of any nation." The following statements are about the Nootka Sound Conventions of 1790... Professor M. Deas stated in the House of Commons on January 17th, 1983 that: "in 1790 the Nootka Sound Convention was signed, by virtue of which, Great Britain waived the right of establishing future settlements in the east and west coasts of South America and in the adjacent islands; and the Royal Navy indifferently informed subsequent Spanish activities in the islands [Malvinas]. Briefly, we set one foot (but there were others) and we left." Memorandum issued by the Foreign Office written by John W. Field and dated February 29th, 1928, which reads: "On October 28th, 1790 a Covenant was signed between this country and Spain, the section 6 of such covenant provided that in the future, any of the parties should establish any settlement in the east or west coasts of South America and adjacent islands, to the south of such portions of those same coasts and islands at the time occupied by Spain [...] According to this section becomes evident that Great Britain was banned from occupying any portion of the Falkland Islands." Memorandum issued by the Department of History of the Foreign Office dated December 7th, 1910 came to the same conclusion: "By virtue of this section (section 6 of the Treaty of 1790) becomes apparent that Great Britain was banned from occupying any portion of the Malvinas islands." Argentina inherited the islands from Spain upon independence and administered them as part of its integral territory... Professor M. Akehurst assertively states that: “Argentina succeeded to Spain’s title. It is a rule of international law that a newly independent State which was formerly a colony succeeds to all the territory within the former colonial boundaries.” Gaston de Bernhardt in his Foreign Office Memorandum dated December 7th, 1910, stated that: “Of the extent of the Spanish Settlement at Soledad (...) It was under the superintendence of an officer entitled "Commandant of the Malvinas" who was dependent on the Viceroy of la Plata. (...)The party appearing to represent Spain in her title to those islands is the Government of Buenos Ayres. On the overthrow of the Spanish supremacy in the Vice-Royalty of La Plata, those territories, with the exception of Paraguay, were converted into a Republic under the name of the "United Provinces of Rio de la Plata" and Buenos Ayres, the capital of the Vice-Royalty, became the seat of Government of the Republic.” Ronald H. Campbell of the Foreign Office, summarised the weaknesses in Britain’s title in his minutes of July 18th, 1911, saying that “(...) they were soon afterwards (in 1820) claimed, and a year or two later occupied, by the United Provinces of Buenos Ayres, as the successors in title of Spain from whom the colony had just won its Independence” Great Britain’s Counter-memorial in the recent Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom) arbitration leaves no room for doubt in regard to its position on uti possidetis: "It is trite law that the territory of a newly independent State is established at the moment of independence. This is reflected in the uti possidetis juris principle, which applies in particular to cases of decolonization, but is not limited to such cases."
@@Holeyguagaamoley The islands are an integral territory of the Argentine Republic because of undeniable juridical and historical facts. If you do not agree with the principles of succession of states by which the Argentine Republic became the successor state of which the islands are an integral part, then that's just your opinion and not my problem. The following is a highly summarized juridical history of the Falkland Islands. I hope I can clarify all your misunderstandings:
@@Holeyguagaamoley In 1492, Christopher Columbus discovered the American continent (ignoring the fact that there were already millions living there). This “discovery” made by Spain was enforced by the pontifical bulls of Pope Alexander VI who named the Catholic monarchs as the sovereigns of the New World. At that time, the pope had the authority to resolve international disputes and grant territories at his own will. He was recognized by all Catholic nations and sovereigns as the representative of God on Earth and given that Creation itself was owned by God he had the authority to act that way. Even England benefitted from pontifical bulls, such as “Laudabiliter” with which it gained the exclusive right to conquer Ireland. Likewise, Spain gained the right to conquer the American continent. However, Portugal also claimed rights over those lands, given that in 1479, Spain and Portugal signed the Treaty of Alcazovas that stipulated that all land discovered and to be discovered to the south of the Canary Islands and to the west of Guinea was Portuguese land. Because of this, the pope mediated between the two and issued the pontifical bull “Inter caetera” in which a line placed a hundred leagues to the west of Cabo Verde that ran from pole to pole was established. Everything to the west of that line would be Spanish and everything to the east of the same would be Portuguese. The Portuguese were not satisfied and asked the Spanish to move further west the line. Spain agreed through the signing of the Treaty of Tordesillas, in which Portugal renounced to some important enclaves in northern Africa. The line was moved from a hundred leagues to three hundred and seventy leagues to the west. Brazil exists because of this line, otherwise, the entire continent of South America would be speaking Spanish today. The Falkland Islands fall to the west of the line, meaning that they corresponded to Spain. The treaty was confirmed by the bull “Ea quae”. France and England accepted the pontifical bulls, given that they were as Catholic as Spain and Portugal, but they disagreed on the geographical application of the documents. At that time, discovery established titles of sovereignty (this changed in the 18th and 19th centuries in which discovery was only considered an inchoate title that needed to be perfected). Spain and Portugal were dedicating their time in the discovery of lands in Central and South America, and England and France were occupied with North America. They argued that the pontifical bulls issued by Alexander VI contradicted the right of discovery and the lands discovered by their nationals should be assigned to them. Sebastian Cabot and Jacques Cartier are the most prominent explorers of England and France from this period. Soon afterwards, King Henry VIII broke relations with the Catholic Church and also the Protestant Reformation began in Europe, changing the view that the pope had any authority over them or that he had any influence in international relations. The bulls and the treaties that derived from the bulls began to be questioned and transgressed by other powers and the only reason France, England and the Netherlands obeyed the Spanish and Portuguese protests was not because of law, but because they were both very powerful nations in those days. Finally, Spain was obliged to look for more solid titles of sovereignty over the American continent. That is how it was established the European colonial system through a network of treaties that recognized the existence of spheres of influence over which each nation had the exclusive right of colonization. Before diving into the pacts entered into by Spain and Great Britain, though not an actually important issue, let’s review discovery. It is a very common argument that England discovered the Falkland Islands. Even the Falkland Islands Government claims that. This is not true and it is evident given the huge amount of evidence regarding the question. The islands were discovered without any reasonable doubt in 1520 by the Spanish expedition commanded by Ferdinand Magellan who was the first confirmed explorer to navigate to the seas of Patagonia and Chile, crossing the Strait of Magellan. His expedition was the first ever to circumnavigate the globe, though he was not among the ones who made it back to Spain. After Magellan’s expedition around the world, the Falkland Islands begin appearing in uncountable maps by the name of “Islas de Sanson” (e.g., that of Pedro Reinel, Diogo Ribeiro, Alonso de Santa Cruz, etc.), but the evidence that definitely proved the discovery made by Ferdinand Magellan is the French manuscript drawn by Andre Thevet in which the Falkland Islands appear in a very precise and detailed depiction with a description. The northern part of the islands is obviously recognizable, the southern was apparently not so explored when the map was made, and they appear in the correct coordinates. The description written by Thevet says that he received that map from an old Portuguese captain that was part of Magellan’s expedition of 1520 in the city of Lisbon. It is known that Magellan and his crew wintered in Port San Julian and explored the region around it, making it practically impossible for them not to discover the islands. When they resumed the expedition, they crossed the Strait of Magellan. Halfway in the strait, the ship commanded by Alvaro da Mezquita, a Portuguese captain, was captured and the ship taken by Estevao Gomes who returned to Spain. Alvaro da Mezquita may have kept one copy of this map and it was given to Thevet. We do know that Thevet and Mezquita lived in Lisbon during the same time. Apart from all of this, the only fact that matters is that the Falkland Islands were known almost a hundred years before the first British pretension of discovery. It is impossible for experienced sailors like John Davis and Richard Hawkins, who are erroneously argued to be the discoverers of the islands, to not know the Spanish, Portuguese and French maps and documents that show the Falkland Islands. It is also known that in 1540 one of the ships of the expedition sent by the bishop of Pasencia spent several months, almost one year, wintering on the islands. The ship was named “Incognita” by historians given that its name was not registered in the navigation logs. The documents describe in very precise detail the Falkland Islands and in its correct location. They also mention that these islands “were on the chart”, meaning that they already figured on the map.
You know zilch about history. Former RM who fought in the war and who knew that we all felt it was the right thing to do even if it cost us our lives. Life is not worth living if you are not prepared to die for it. I thought Micheal Foot was an awful politician but compared to Comrade Corbyn he is a Ronald Reagan.
@@markharrison2544 Well done to bring the Chagos Islanders into the discussion - it is indeed shameful how they have been treated. But 2 wrongs do not make a right. One can condemn the decision of the British government to turf out the Chagos residents while supporting the decision to go to war in the Falklands. In the end, what do the arguments *against* the war amount to? That the Falklands are too small to matter. That's a problematic position in terms of principle, for obvious reasons, but it's problematic in practical terms also - "give them a foot and they'll take a mile", with "them" being not merely the Argentinian junta but also all the repressive governments around the world who would be emboldened by international lawlessness. Not going to war would have meant choosing the abandonment of values we hold sacred - not only our commitment to the right of peoples to self determination and democracy, but also our commitment to the protection of, and solidarity with, our fellow citizens and those under the protection of our country. Sometimes the instinctive tribal reaction - solidarity with one's own country- is right and socially useful. This is an example.
He is a good speaker indeed, but he is not correct in the least. He claims that there is somehow a British right to the Falkland Islands, something that is understood by the entire international community and by scholars to be absolutely false; the United Nations will never support the usurpation of foreign territory and in fact it does not. He claims that Argentina provoked the armed conflict, when the Organization of American States declared that that was the British government. And he is apparently convinced that the morality of the British government is an example for the world, completely ignoring not only usurpations like that of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, but crimes against humanity like what happened in Chagos, the so-called British Indian Ocean Territory, and other places around the world in the second half of the 20th century that still are not repaired, without mentioning that the United Kingdom still holds to ten non-self-governing territories that are subject to the process of decolonization. I like the way in which he spoke, but he is not correct, whether historically, politically, morally. No unbiased person would support those ideas that are completely opposed to international law, specially the United Nations. Studying seriously the juridical situation of the Falkland Islands is key to understand the position of Argentina, of the international community as a whole and the United Nations. Do not support colonialism.
Who do you think lives on the Falklands islands??? What proportion of the population do think is Argentinian??? It is the will of the people who LIVE there NOT the will of those that do NOT!!! And as absurd as some think Gibraltar is, being that it is on the same land mass as Spain it is still the will of those that live there, AND I might add those of Spanish decent who were born there or those that have chosen to reside there!
@@Tawny6702 No, that's not how it works, a state cannot simply usurp a territory from another, fill it with its civilians and then make them decide the future of the usurpation, that would lead to unlawful outcomes, a fait accompli to be more precise, as the actual victims of the situation, in this case Argentines, would not have a say on the matter. Territorial rights (space, geopolitical advantages, natural resources, tourism, scientific exploration, among others) belong to Argentines and Falkland Islanders alike, not just to Falkland Islanders, much less when they are an extension of the population of the aggressor state. That territory is Argentine and Argentines cannot be deprived of what corresponds to them through unlawful means, without mentioning that applying self-determination exclusively to Falkland Islanders would not only be unjust, undemocratic and irresponsible towards Argentines, but it would establish extremely dangerous precedents for international law, as many states that have usurped territory and have filled them with their civilians would be able to claim the same, that their civilians can serve as judges in a territorial dispute where usurpation is present, for instance, Israel-Palestine (West Bank), Russia-Japan (Southern Kuril Islands), Russia-Ukraine (Crimea), among several others, which makes the proposition even more absurd and dangerous. Self-determination is a principle of international law that applies to the entire population of juridical territorial units, in this case the Falkland Islands are a territorial unit, but just a factual one, as the United Kingdom cannot justify its existence juridically. In this case the actual territorial unit would be Argentina including the islands as an integral part accordginly with international law, meaning that Argentines and Falkland Islanders share one and the same right of peoples to self-determination, this means that they have the right to participate of the democratic life of Argentina, but not depriving Argentines from their rights. In other words, if one wanted to apply self-determination to solve this issue, then at least in needs to respect the most basic principles of democracy and include every individual holding a right in the given situation, in this case both Argentines and Falkland Islanders, not Falkland Islanders exclusively, as that would be unjust, undemocratic, irresponsible, among other facts. The Welsh community living in Chubut is in the exact same situation as Falkland Islanders, they have the right to participate of Argentine democracy, but not seceding from Argentina. British judge and ex-president of the International Court of Justice Rosalyn Higgins shares the same understanding accordingly to the relevant United Nations resolutions that develop the principle of self-determination and the precedents established by the court itself. She refers to this in the following words: _One further issue on self-determination remains to be mentioned. It follows from the principle of territorial integrity. It is often the case that self-determination is part of the armoury of rhetoric in what is essentially a dispute about territorial title. Both the case of Gibraltar and that of the Falklands illustrate the point. Title to Gibraltar is disputed between the United Kingdom and Spain. Title to the Falklands-Malvinas is disputed between the United Kingdom and Argentina. From the perspective of the United Kingdom, self-determination has a pertinent role to play. These are dependent territories, whose peoples have been given the opportunity to decide if they would like to remain in the status quo or not. From the British point of view, it is important that the wishes of the peoples of the territories be heard and heeded. But from the point of view of the Argentinians and Spanish, that is an irrelevance. If the territory concerned belongs to Argentina, or to Spain, then the inhabitants have no right of self-determination - any more than would Spanish or Argentinian nationals happening to live in the United Kingdom._ _Judge Hardy Dillard's famous dictum in the Western Sahara case has been much quoted: "[i]t is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people"._ _Attractive an aphorism though it is, it still has to be said that the territorial issue does come first. Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have a right of self-determination (other than the ongoing right that all citizens of those countries have to determine their own political status and economic development). As neither country [Morocco and Mauritania] had sovereignty over Western Sahara, that territory was indeed a colonial dependency of Spain, whose peoples were entitled to exercise self-determination and choose their own destiny. It necessarily follows from all that I have said that I do not share the view of those who see the current problems of Hong Kong as problems of self-determination. At least so far as the leased territories are concerned, it is clear that title lies with China and must revert there in 1997. The issue in my view is to secure the generality of human rights of all in Hong Kong after that time rather than to insist that they have been denied the right of self-determination._ As you can very clearly understand from her words, if a leased non-self-governing territory must be returned to its legitimate state upon the termination of the lease, then an usurped non-self-governing territory more so. Apart from that, the Falkland Islands are a territoy in dispute and the International Court of Justice has been very clear about this, only two things matter: sovereignty, which belongs to only one of the populations that claims the territory, and the immediate human rights of the population within the disputed territory. As long as those human rights are guaranteed, then the population has no say on the determination of sovereignty, only the title determines sovereignty and in this case title lies with the Argentine Republic. Besides, the Falkland Islands are no different than other territorial disputes solved by the court or other means, there were territories with hundreds of thousands of people, even millions, and none of those cases involved self-determination, because in those cases self-determination is unjust and thus illegal, in fact, using it to do what you propose is expressly prohibited by international law. Those territories in dispute were far more populated and inhabited by far more generations than in the Falkland Islands, what makes the latter different? Nothing at all, without mentioning that the population of the islands is a mostly artificial population that fluctuates according to the colonial needs of the administering state, the United Kingdom, which makes the application of self-determination to this case even more controversial to say the least. Also, it is not unique. This kind of territorial disputes end up with the creation of autonomous administrative divisions meant for the population of the territory to be respected in its way of life, guaranteeing the protection of their human rights, but within the territorial context of the state to which the territory legitimately belongs. The most famous cases of this are that of Eritrea (Ethiopia-Italy), the Aland Islands (Finland-Sweden), among others, in fact, that's one of the proposals to end the colonial situation of the Falkland Islands, this is, creating a "special province" within the Argentine Republic exclusively for Falkland Islanders.
@Johnny Golightly It is not hard to spot the difference at all, in fact, there is a crucial difference that you are conveniently ignoring in order to put the cases of Argentina and the Falkland Islands at the same level, which is not only fallacious, but hypocritical; but I won't point fingers because perhaps you are genuinly not perceiving it, I prefer you being an ignorant rather than a liar. The land that would become independent as Argentina was conquered by Spain and liberated by Argentines, Argentina is the result of a creole people fighting together for their independence from Spanish colonialism. Even the declaration of independence of Argentina was written in four languages: Spanish obviously and three other precolonial languages, Aymara, Quechua and Guaraní. The Argentine government appointed figures of authority of precolonial ancestry since the very beginning of its independent existence, including provincial governors, among them Casimiro Biguá, an Aónikenk leader, main chief of the Patagonian territories, who considered himself and his people Argentines and recognized Argentine sovereignty over his territories with a ceremonial act after being appointed by the Argentine government as governor of his territories from the Atlantic up to the Andes and he defended those territories against Chilean attempts to settle there. His mother before him, the Queen of the Strait of Magellan, was even invited to a party in the Falkland Islands by Luis Vernet, one of the last Argentine governors of the Falkland Islands before the British usurpation. And, most importantly, it was the Argentine government the one that appointed Pablo Areguatí as the third governor of the Falkland Islands, a veteran of the Argentine War of Independence from Guaraní ancestry. This means that even the first contact of precolonial peoples with the islands was thanks to Argentina, and a lot more could be said. Precolonial peoples were considered an integral part of the Argentine people since the very beginning and they helped establishing it through its struggle for independence against its colonial captor. On the other hand, the Falkland Islands were usurped by the United Kingdom and they must be liberated from British colonialism by the process of decolonization started by the United Nations accordingly with international law. Just in case you were lost, the difference is clear and crucial: Spain gained the territoy from precolonial peoples, Argentina regained the land from Spanish colonialism. The United Kingdom gained the land from Argentina, the only question that remains is, when will Argentina regain the land from British colonialism? Apart from that evident difference that apparently you missed, international law focuses on states and the protection of human rights, so even if there had been a state in what today is Argentina before the Spanish conquest, which is not the case (except for the Tawantinsuyu that barely occupied Argentine territory), then that state does no longer exist and it is impossible to make justice for it. On the other hand, Argentina still exists and it demands its territorial rights to be respected accordingly with international law. As long as the human rights of precolonial peoples and the human rights of the population of the Falkland Islands are respected, then international law focuses on existing states.
@Johnny Golightly That's history, not a description of history. If you don't like it, then that's not my problem. Maybe you are pissed because you tried to compare two situations that are completely unrelated as an argument. I am sorry you don't like the difference that you couldn't spot, even though it is a crucial difference...
I am a Conservative but this was a masterclass from Foot, how a Labour Leader should behave (and Leader of the Opposition)
Yes it is often forgotten how many people on the 'old' left like Foot supported action against Argentina. Foot was a great intellectual but not a great leader alas.
Foot was more keen to go to war with Argentina than Thatcher was! The government he was a part of in 1977 had also seen off an Argentine threat preemptively. The Argentine government was making the same kind of overtures in 1982 without Britain responding in a manner which would make the war less likely.
conservatism is for dummies its their to keep you stupid
@@incredibleXMan He later tried to distance himself from his initial position as the war unfolded.
@@starguy321 The UK acted the same way in 1982 and in 1977. The Argentine response was different in 1982.
This brings tears to my eyes. What a contrast with these days.
I couldnt imagine jeremy corbyn making that speech !!!
Had the good fortune to meet Michael Foot socially. He was a decent, honourable man.
No he was not, he was a cunt!. He was a nasty socialist scumbag
And Michael Foot would have handed over our country, just like Corbyn. Weak and feeble. Weak and wobbly. THAT IS THE LABOUR PARTY.
L is for Labour, L is for Lice! Harry Enfield! th-cam.com/video/i4_WuFTX-5E/w-d-xo.html
T is for Tory. T is for twats.
T is for Terrific, T is for Triumphant and B is for Brexit. L is for Loser. Oh yeah an L is also for Lice.
I am a Thatcherite and find his presentation impressive.
I am an Argentine and this man was one of the best British orators since Churchill.
Foot was a Soviet agent. Churchill was a traitor.
The elegance and clarity of Michael Foot's opposition speech (over such a monumental matter) is something any modern-day politician or public speaker might be advised to study.
What a brilliant orator. Britain lost a political colossus when this man passed away in 2010
Michael foot was a towering inferno of intellect ,his genuine compassion allowed him to stand along side those left on the outside of conversation ,foot will never be forgotten ,he was the polar opposite to the thatcherites yet he could never galvinise support from the ordinary middle classes ,
When we listen to the likes of M Foot, the contrast with the feeble, self-seeking inadequates who sit in the Commons becomes blindingly clear.
He ran out of steam a bit at the end but I agree today's politicians are no match for him and attention spans have waned anyway. He was flattered by the radio medium.
Simpson Henry he was nothing compared to thatcher ;)
That's actually quite rude I believe towards the huge amount of MPs in the commons who are of great substance, such as Hillary Benn, Jacob Rees-Mogg etc etc
That's two out of 650. There are a handful of others such as Dennis Skinner: the rest are pale imitations of the 1960s and 1970s figures and I can only assume you're too young to remember them.
Yes I am too young to remember them, though I am aware of the biases that older people have towards 'their golden era'. Everyone does it
Brilliant speech by Michael Foot one of the greatest statesman in all of history
Such a statesman is Michael Foote and we miss people like Michael in today’s politics.
Don't we just . . .
More than a generation ago we had educated, intelligent statesmen (and women) in parliament. Now we have a rabble. Fishwives and scoundrels - the uneducated self serving rabble represent us now.
you have now comedians.
...and morons vote for them.
Foot was confirmed to have been Agent Boot.
Well said Michael - God bless you 🙏
Foot was the right man but in the wrong moment. When we hear the party leaders from a generation ago it just makes one sad for what passes for leadership today
Brilliant find. Enjoyed listening to this. Do you have any other recordings of Michael Foot speaking?
Here is a great one
th-cam.com/video/WCXcF8L0KTA/w-d-xo.html
Brilliant well written speech by Michael Foot and there no more statesmen or women right now in The Commons.
Is that Margaret Thatcher saying `hear, hear'?
Peter Shore, another Labour MP was another brilliant orator.
The Iron Lady was generally a good film but it should have portrayed Foot in a more accurate light.
I am lab and I didn't like Michael foot's left leanings but I really respected him and he had so much intelligence and gravitas, compared to the left under corbyn who was like a very bad Bambi !! , Foot will be missed !!!
Foot was a brilliant orator and a formidable intellect. It was unlikely he would have ever been elected as PM by middle England. He was I think a more natural Cabinet minister.
Foot later tried to distance himself from his inital support for military action as the war got underway.
Michael Foot was a Politician the Torys always wished was one of theirs. I have been a Tory for 50 years, but I always had a huge respect for Michael Foot, loathed his Politics, but the UK would be a richer place if he were around now. He died March 2010 age 96.
Foot could have the best of both worlds that day. He could condemn the invasion and tell the Falklanders he supported them. He could also blame the government for the invasion. Basically, "This is all the government's fault, but don't worry, we'll help get the Falklands back. But remember, it's the government's fault."
Well that is one of the benefits of being in Opposition.
He stole the show!
Although i disagree with Mr Foot's stance on this matter, one has to admire this man's oration. A far cry from the useless leader of the opposition of today who may well look all smart and dandy, yet possess hardly any of the acumen this much derided politician once had.
Corbyn could learn from this.
My hero
Michael Foot was cheered to the rafters by Tories.
Former primer, Michael foot, a radicals, and I wanted too read his 📚 📖. Books about him,hes haves good.points,
He would have been a great PM
When politicians knew how to make speeches! Both in content, manner, and in NOT shirking from holding the government to account in a statesman like manner.
UK gov. supported the dictatorship. They even sent weapons to Argentina. The only civilians killed in those islands were killed by the task force. Galtieri was in Washington before the war. Some authors say they gave green light to the invasion. The war saved Thatcher's popularity.
Are you really that stupid
@@theoilandgasresourceportal2132 The UK had armed Galtieri's regime.
Michael foot, the former primer, hes a radic...and he's, a consf... too also.
Could you imagine today's Tory party in Westminster trying to listen to this? It has descended into a zoo of late. TV makes it even worse
Peter Green could you imagine today’s Labour Party to listen to this and not side with our enemies. They would bleat about Argentine human rights etc. They would want the military to be “diverse” and ineffective.
Foot was unelectable due to the split opposition. Plus he looked about 80.
He looked 80, you sound stupid.
Peron created the Malvinas myth and by '82 Argentina was ready for war.
Falklands - Argentina's Imaginary Territory (1 pg):- www.academia.edu/35715281/Falklands_Argentinas_Imaginary_Territory
Good speech by Michael but hey, his "defence" policies would have left Britain impotent to help
the Falkland Islanders????????????????????????????
Thatcher didn't nuke the Falklands!
Foot was a much better orator than the over dramatic Neil Kinnock and bland Tony Blair.
What about John Smith?
@@Warriorcats64 Smith was leader for a short period of time so it's difficult to say. He did have one good line: John Major was a "devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government." Years later some Tory would use that line when referring to PM Gordon Brown.
Foot was a paper tiger against the Iron lady.
Thatcher hated by more than loved her
Many being fooled by Foot's articulate style: he was absolutely raving!
Your paltry denunciation isn't supported by the evidence above. He towered over the pathetic opposition, so they had to use PR against him.
@@baronmeduse in that case you must regard the British people as being incredibly stupid for falling for the 'PR'
Then goes and ruins it by wearing a donkey jacket.
Martin Poole Wasn't the donkey jacket incident a year earlier than the Falklands War?
As I understand it he was not wearing a donkey jacket. That was an invention of a well known red top newspaper but the claim stood.
He was probably a KGB asset
You would know from experience I take it...
Don't think so
@@davidlawson7121 Foot was Agent Boot.
Let's have a look at how British rule and 'moral authority' in Ireland was working out in the lead up to the Malvinas/Falklands War:
Wednesday 13 January 1982
Lord Gowrie, then an Northern Ireland Office (NIO) Minister, said that Direct Rule was "very unBritish" and indicated that he personally preferred a form dual citizenship, with Britain and the Republic of Ireland being responsible for the administration of those who considered themselves to be Irish.
Monday 15 January 1982
James Prior, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, announced the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry into the sexual abuse of children who lived in the Kincora Boys Home in Belfast. [The Kincora Scandal first broke on 3 April 1980 when three staff members of the Kincora Boys Home, Belfast, were charged with acts of gross indecency. Allegations continued to be made that elements of the security service, civil servants and a number of Loyalists had been involved in the abuse of young boys at Kincora. One of those sentenced was William McGrath who was the leader of a Loyalist paramilitary group called Tara.]
Tuesday 19 January 1982
The first meeting of Anglo-Irish Inter-government Council took place.
Thursday 21 January 1982
Owen Carron and Danny Morrison, then both members of Sinn Féin (SF), were arrested when they tried to illegally enter the United States of America (USA) from Canada. Both men were later deported back to Canada.
Saturday 23 January 1982
Two members of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), a father and son, were shot dead in their home by other UDA members in an internal dispute.
Friday 29 January 1982
John McKeague, who had been a prominent Loyalist activist, was shot dead by the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) in his shop, Albertbridge Road, Belfast.
Monday 1 February 1982
Representatives of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) held a meeting with James Prior, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and they told him that they were opposed to his policy of 'rolling devolution'. Michael Foot, then leader of the Labour Party, began a three day visit to Northern Ireland.
Sunday 7 February 1982
Martin Kyles (19), a Catholic civilian, died two days after being shot by British Soldiers as he travelled ('joy riding') in a stolen car in the grounds of the Royal Victoria Hospital, Falls Road, Belfast.
Friday 12 February 1982
Three of the five members of the Committee of Inquiry set up to investigate the Kincora Scandal resigned. They claimed that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) had not dealt with all the major criminal matters surrounding the case.
The DeLorean Motor Company laid off 1,100 of its 2,600 workers. [This was a major blow to the economically deprived area of west Belfast.]
Monday 15 February 1982
The shipyard Harland and Wolff in Belfast announced that it would lay off 1,000 workers from its workforce of 7,000.
Thursday 18 February 1982
James Prior, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, announced that a full public inquiry would take place into the matters surrounding the Kincora Scandal. [Three members of the private inquiry resigned on 12 February 1982.]
Friday 19 February 1982
The DeLorean Motor Company was put into receivership. [The remaining jobs were lost when the factory in west Belfast closed in May 1982. The government had provided public funds of £80 million, most of these were lost with the collapse of the company.]
Saturday 20 February 1982
Patrick Reynolds (24), then an Officer in the Garda Síochána (the Irish police), was shot dead by the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) when he went to a house in Avonbeg Gardens, Tallaght, Dublin.
Tuesday 23 Februay 1982
The Irish Republican Army (IRA) sunk a British coal boat, the St Bedan, in Lough Foyle.
Monday 1 March 1982
The British Enkalon company announced that it would close its factory in Antrim with the loss of 850 jobs.
Tuesday 2 March 1982
Lord Lowry, then Northern Ireland Lord Chief Justice, was attacked by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as he paid a visit to the Queen's University of Belfast. The IRA fired several shots at Lowry who was not injured but a lecturer at the university was wounded by the gunfire.
Thursday 4 March 1982
By-Election in South Belfast
item mark Following the killing of Robert Bradford on 14 November 1981 there was a by-election in the constituency of South Belfast to fill the vacant Westminster seat. Martin Smyth, then head of the Orange Order, won the election as a Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) candidate. [The election campaign was marked by antagonism between the UUP and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) who both fielded candidates.]
Gerard Tuite, formerly a member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), was arrested in the Republic of Ireland following a period 'on the run'. [Tuite became the first person to be charged in the Republic for offences committed in Britain. He had escaped from Brixton Prison in London on 16 December 1980 where he had been serving a sentence for bombing offences in London in 1978. He was sentenced in July 1982 to 10 years imprisonment.]
Friday 5 March 1982
Seamus Morgan (24), a member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), was shot dead by fellow members of the IRA who alleged that he was an informer. His body was found near to Forkhill, County Armagh.
Sunday 14 March 1982
John Hume, then leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), said that the plans for 'rolling devolution' were "unworkable".
Monday 15 March 1982
Alan McCrum (11), a Protestant boy, was killed and 34 people injured when the Irish Republican Army (IRA) exploded a bomb in Bridge Street, Banbridge, County Down. An inadequate warning had been given.
Wednesday 17 March 1982
Charles Haughey, then Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister), paid a visit to the United States of America (USA) as part of St Patrick day celebrations. During the visit he called on the US government to put more pressure on Britain to consider the possibility of Irish unity.
Thursday 25 March 1982
The Irish Republican Army (IRA) killed three British Soldiers during a gun attack on Crocus Street, off the Springfield Road in west Belfast. Five other people were injured in the attack. [It was believed that an M-60 machine gun was used in the attack.]
Friday 26 March 1982
The Irish Republican Army (IRA) said that it would grant an 'amnesty' to any informers who retracted evidence given to the security forces.
Thursday 1 April 1982
Two undercover members of the British Army were shot dead by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as they drove a civilian type van from the joint Army / Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) base in Rosemount, Derry.
We do not want that Emerald Toilet but the majority wish to stay British.
Stop bombing innocent people terrorist sympathiser
Falklands oil company.... It was for oil
good reason then
oil was not the factor, no one had searched for it at that time. So your statement was not based on the Truth.
Incorrect, 38 years later and still no real oil from it
I am a shareholder of Rockhopper Petroleum, there is no oil development in the islands. You need to engage your brain occasionally
Michael Foot was a Marxist through and through. His ideas were as mad and as extreme as Corbyn’s. He was part of a system where the top rate of tax was 98 percent, but also argued for an absolute maximum wage. From memory he believed £26,000 should be limit which is about £150,000 today. A lot, but not enough to encourage the “brightest and the best”.
He believed in the absolute power of the Trade Unions, even though the history of unlimited power had been disastrous for the economy with the destruction of most of British industry; and led directly to “the winter of discontent”, with the streets covered in rubbish and the dead unburied
After his death, it was revealed he had been in the pay of the Soviet Union.
Gi’or with yourself.
Corbyn is no Michael Foot
Say NO to piracy!
+Tulaenelorto Down with the capitalist propaganda! Long live Comrade Foot! lololol
I say NO TO ARGENTINE PIRACY
I agree! The descendents of Spanish colonialism should leave Argentina and return the stolen land to the native americans.
It is undeniable that the Falkland Islands are Argentine territory.
Rhinarium ;3 I deny it, they have never belonged to Argentina and they never will. The territories were owned by Spain and the independence of Argentina from Spain did not transfer the islands to Argentina. I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.
@@Holeyguagaamoley Well, denying the facts is not healthy, you know? Specially when the fact that the Falkland Islands are an integral territory of the Argentine Republic usurped by the United Kingdom is not only recognized by the international community (the vast majority of the United Nations member states, including European Union and Commonwealth members), every international law expert that studies the question and the Foreign Office itself.
The next are British sources only, just to name a few:
@@Holeyguagaamoley Foreign Office, October 16th, 1936:
"The difficulty of the position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits."
A note dated November 3rd, 1928 from Sir Malcolm Robertson to Sir Ronald Lindsay:
"As regards the Falkland Islands, I have always considered, ever since reading de Bernhardt's Foreign Office memorandum of December, 1910, that our claim to the islands was very weak indeed. In point of fact it is based upon force and very little else. This view appears to have been held by successive British governments since Lord Palmerston's days, for they have been at pains to avoid the question's being raised. I realised that the islands are of vital strategic value to us, and that we cannot give them up, however just or unjust our position may be."
Preliminary Memorandum issued by the Foreign Office's Investigation Department on September 17th, 1946 concludes:
"The British occupation of 1833 was, at the time, an act of unjustifiable aggression which has now acquired the backing of the rights of prescription."
(This is correct, except for the prescription part... Prescription cannot be invoked because its possession does not comply with the requirements of prescription: it has not been peaceful, and suffers the initial vice of possession obtained by use of force; nor is it undisputed, as Argentina has never acquiesced to the situation. Also, as Hugo Grotius says in regard to prescription: "time has no productive virtue, nothing is done through time, but rather everything happens in time", meaning that the simple passing of time in itself does not produce a change in a territorial situation.)
French jurist Gaston Jeze wrote in 1896:
"If in fact, thanks to its power, England triumphs, in law there is no doubt that the Argentine Republic maintains sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands and maintains it for as long as the English usurpation lasts."
Julius Goebel Jr., author of the first in-depth research on the dispute, concludes his exhaustive and detailed work supporting the Argentine position stating:
"The law which states have so painstakingly wrought to govern their relations is too precious a heritage to be suborned to cover the imperialistic designs of any nation."
The following statements are about the Nootka Sound Conventions of 1790...
Professor M. Deas stated in the House of Commons on January 17th, 1983 that:
"in 1790 the Nootka Sound Convention was signed, by virtue of which, Great Britain waived the right of establishing future settlements in the east and west coasts of South America and in the adjacent islands; and the Royal Navy indifferently informed subsequent Spanish activities in the islands [Malvinas]. Briefly, we set one foot (but there were others) and we left."
Memorandum issued by the Foreign Office written by John W. Field and dated February 29th, 1928, which reads:
"On October 28th, 1790 a Covenant was signed between this country and Spain, the section 6 of such covenant provided that in the future, any of the parties should establish any settlement in the east or west coasts of South America and adjacent islands, to the south of such portions of those same coasts and islands at the time occupied by Spain [...] According to this section becomes evident that Great Britain was banned from occupying any portion of the Falkland Islands."
Memorandum issued by the Department of History of the Foreign Office dated December 7th, 1910 came to the same conclusion:
"By virtue of this section (section 6 of the Treaty of 1790) becomes apparent that Great Britain was banned from occupying any portion of the Malvinas islands."
Argentina inherited the islands from Spain upon independence and administered them as part of its integral territory...
Professor M. Akehurst assertively states that:
“Argentina succeeded to Spain’s title. It is a rule of international law that a newly independent State which was formerly a colony succeeds to all the territory within the former colonial boundaries.”
Gaston de Bernhardt in his Foreign Office Memorandum dated December 7th, 1910, stated that:
“Of the extent of the Spanish Settlement at Soledad (...) It was under the superintendence of an officer entitled "Commandant of the Malvinas" who was dependent on the Viceroy of la Plata. (...)The party appearing to represent Spain in her title to those islands is the Government of Buenos Ayres. On the overthrow of the Spanish supremacy in the Vice-Royalty of La Plata, those territories, with the exception of Paraguay, were converted into a Republic under the name of the "United Provinces of Rio de la Plata" and Buenos Ayres, the capital of the Vice-Royalty, became the seat of Government of the Republic.”
Ronald H. Campbell of the Foreign Office, summarised the weaknesses in Britain’s title in his minutes of July 18th, 1911, saying that
“(...) they were soon afterwards (in 1820) claimed, and a year or two later occupied, by the United Provinces of Buenos Ayres, as the successors in title of Spain from whom the colony had just won its Independence”
Great Britain’s Counter-memorial in the recent Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom) arbitration leaves no room for doubt in regard to its position on uti possidetis:
"It is trite law that the territory of a newly independent State is established at the moment of independence. This is reflected in the uti possidetis juris principle, which applies in particular to cases of decolonization, but is not limited to such cases."
@@Holeyguagaamoley The islands are an integral territory of the Argentine Republic because of undeniable juridical and historical facts. If you do not agree with the principles of succession of states by which the Argentine Republic became the successor state of which the islands are an integral part, then that's just your opinion and not my problem. The following is a highly summarized juridical history of the Falkland Islands. I hope I can clarify all your misunderstandings:
@@Holeyguagaamoley In 1492, Christopher Columbus discovered the American continent (ignoring the fact that there were already millions living there). This “discovery” made by Spain was enforced by the pontifical bulls of Pope Alexander VI who named the Catholic monarchs as the sovereigns of the New World. At that time, the pope had the authority to resolve international disputes and grant territories at his own will. He was recognized by all Catholic nations and sovereigns as the representative of God on Earth and given that Creation itself was owned by God he had the authority to act that way. Even England benefitted from pontifical bulls, such as “Laudabiliter” with which it gained the exclusive right to conquer Ireland. Likewise, Spain gained the right to conquer the American continent. However, Portugal also claimed rights over those lands, given that in 1479, Spain and Portugal signed the Treaty of Alcazovas that stipulated that all land discovered and to be discovered to the south of the Canary Islands and to the west of Guinea was Portuguese land. Because of this, the pope mediated between the two and issued the pontifical bull “Inter caetera” in which a line placed a hundred leagues to the west of Cabo Verde that ran from pole to pole was established. Everything to the west of that line would be Spanish and everything to the east of the same would be Portuguese. The Portuguese were not satisfied and asked the Spanish to move further west the line. Spain agreed through the signing of the Treaty of Tordesillas, in which Portugal renounced to some important enclaves in northern Africa. The line was moved from a hundred leagues to three hundred and seventy leagues to the west. Brazil exists because of this line, otherwise, the entire continent of South America would be speaking Spanish today. The Falkland Islands fall to the west of the line, meaning that they corresponded to Spain. The treaty was confirmed by the bull “Ea quae”.
France and England accepted the pontifical bulls, given that they were as Catholic as Spain and Portugal, but they disagreed on the geographical application of the documents. At that time, discovery established titles of sovereignty (this changed in the 18th and 19th centuries in which discovery was only considered an inchoate title that needed to be perfected). Spain and Portugal were dedicating their time in the discovery of lands in Central and South America, and England and France were occupied with North America. They argued that the pontifical bulls issued by Alexander VI contradicted the right of discovery and the lands discovered by their nationals should be assigned to them. Sebastian Cabot and Jacques Cartier are the most prominent explorers of England and France from this period. Soon afterwards, King Henry VIII broke relations with the Catholic Church and also the Protestant Reformation began in Europe, changing the view that the pope had any authority over them or that he had any influence in international relations. The bulls and the treaties that derived from the bulls began to be questioned and transgressed by other powers and the only reason France, England and the Netherlands obeyed the Spanish and Portuguese protests was not because of law, but because they were both very powerful nations in those days. Finally, Spain was obliged to look for more solid titles of sovereignty over the American continent. That is how it was established the European colonial system through a network of treaties that recognized the existence of spheres of influence over which each nation had the exclusive right of colonization.
Before diving into the pacts entered into by Spain and Great Britain, though not an actually important issue, let’s review discovery. It is a very common argument that England discovered the Falkland Islands. Even the Falkland Islands Government claims that. This is not true and it is evident given the huge amount of evidence regarding the question. The islands were discovered without any reasonable doubt in 1520 by the Spanish expedition commanded by Ferdinand Magellan who was the first confirmed explorer to navigate to the seas of Patagonia and Chile, crossing the Strait of Magellan. His expedition was the first ever to circumnavigate the globe, though he was not among the ones who made it back to Spain. After Magellan’s expedition around the world, the Falkland Islands begin appearing in uncountable maps by the name of “Islas de Sanson” (e.g., that of Pedro Reinel, Diogo Ribeiro, Alonso de Santa Cruz, etc.), but the evidence that definitely proved the discovery made by Ferdinand Magellan is the French manuscript drawn by Andre Thevet in which the Falkland Islands appear in a very precise and detailed depiction with a description. The northern part of the islands is obviously recognizable, the southern was apparently not so explored when the map was made, and they appear in the correct coordinates. The description written by Thevet says that he received that map from an old Portuguese captain that was part of Magellan’s expedition of 1520 in the city of Lisbon. It is known that Magellan and his crew wintered in Port San Julian and explored the region around it, making it practically impossible for them not to discover the islands. When they resumed the expedition, they crossed the Strait of Magellan. Halfway in the strait, the ship commanded by Alvaro da Mezquita, a Portuguese captain, was captured and the ship taken by Estevao Gomes who returned to Spain. Alvaro da Mezquita may have kept one copy of this map and it was given to Thevet. We do know that Thevet and Mezquita lived in Lisbon during the same time. Apart from all of this, the only fact that matters is that the Falkland Islands were known almost a hundred years before the first British pretension of discovery. It is impossible for experienced sailors like John Davis and Richard Hawkins, who are erroneously argued to be the discoverers of the islands, to not know the Spanish, Portuguese and French maps and documents that show the Falkland Islands.
It is also known that in 1540 one of the ships of the expedition sent by the bishop of Pasencia spent several months, almost one year, wintering on the islands. The ship was named “Incognita” by historians given that its name was not registered in the navigation logs. The documents describe in very precise detail the Falkland Islands and in its correct location. They also mention that these islands “were on the chart”, meaning that they already figured on the map.
We should have given the Falklands to Argentina.
say that to the people that live there and soldiers that went you prick ha
It wasn't worth going to war over the Falklands after we had forcibly evicted the Chagos islanders to build a US military base.
We only won the war by allying with a brutal dictator in Chile.
You know zilch about history. Former RM who fought in the war and who knew that we all felt it was the right thing to do even if it cost us our lives. Life is not worth living if you are not prepared to die for it. I thought Micheal Foot was an awful politician but compared to Comrade Corbyn he is a Ronald Reagan.
@@markharrison2544 Well done to bring the Chagos Islanders into the discussion - it is indeed shameful how they have been treated. But 2 wrongs do not make a right. One can condemn the decision of the British government to turf out the Chagos residents while supporting the decision to go to war in the Falklands.
In the end, what do the arguments *against* the war amount to? That the Falklands are too small to matter. That's a problematic position in terms of principle, for obvious reasons, but it's problematic in practical terms also - "give them a foot and they'll take a mile", with "them" being not merely the Argentinian junta but also all the repressive governments around the world who would be emboldened by international lawlessness. Not going to war would have meant choosing the abandonment of values we hold sacred - not only our commitment to the right of peoples to self determination and democracy, but also our commitment to the protection of, and solidarity with, our fellow citizens and those under the protection of our country.
Sometimes the instinctive tribal reaction - solidarity with one's own country- is right and socially useful. This is an example.
He is a good speaker indeed, but he is not correct in the least. He claims that there is somehow a British right to the Falkland Islands, something that is understood by the entire international community and by scholars to be absolutely false; the United Nations will never support the usurpation of foreign territory and in fact it does not. He claims that Argentina provoked the armed conflict, when the Organization of American States declared that that was the British government. And he is apparently convinced that the morality of the British government is an example for the world, completely ignoring not only usurpations like that of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, but crimes against humanity like what happened in Chagos, the so-called British Indian Ocean Territory, and other places around the world in the second half of the 20th century that still are not repaired, without mentioning that the United Kingdom still holds to ten non-self-governing territories that are subject to the process of decolonization. I like the way in which he spoke, but he is not correct, whether historically, politically, morally. No unbiased person would support those ideas that are completely opposed to international law, specially the United Nations. Studying seriously the juridical situation of the Falkland Islands is key to understand the position of Argentina, of the international community as a whole and the United Nations. Do not support colonialism.
Who do you think lives on the Falklands islands??? What proportion of the population do think is Argentinian??? It is the will of the people who LIVE there NOT the will of those that do NOT!!! And as absurd as some think Gibraltar is, being that it is on the same land mass as Spain it is still the will of those that live there, AND I might add those of Spanish decent who were born there or those that have chosen to reside there!
@@Tawny6702 No, that's not how it works, a state cannot simply usurp a territory from another, fill it with its civilians and then make them decide the future of the usurpation, that would lead to unlawful outcomes, a fait accompli to be more precise, as the actual victims of the situation, in this case Argentines, would not have a say on the matter. Territorial rights (space, geopolitical advantages, natural resources, tourism, scientific exploration, among others) belong to Argentines and Falkland Islanders alike, not just to Falkland Islanders, much less when they are an extension of the population of the aggressor state. That territory is Argentine and Argentines cannot be deprived of what corresponds to them through unlawful means, without mentioning that applying self-determination exclusively to Falkland Islanders would not only be unjust, undemocratic and irresponsible towards Argentines, but it would establish extremely dangerous precedents for international law, as many states that have usurped territory and have filled them with their civilians would be able to claim the same, that their civilians can serve as judges in a territorial dispute where usurpation is present, for instance, Israel-Palestine (West Bank), Russia-Japan (Southern Kuril Islands), Russia-Ukraine (Crimea), among several others, which makes the proposition even more absurd and dangerous. Self-determination is a principle of international law that applies to the entire population of juridical territorial units, in this case the Falkland Islands are a territorial unit, but just a factual one, as the United Kingdom cannot justify its existence juridically. In this case the actual territorial unit would be Argentina including the islands as an integral part accordginly with international law, meaning that Argentines and Falkland Islanders share one and the same right of peoples to self-determination, this means that they have the right to participate of the democratic life of Argentina, but not depriving Argentines from their rights. In other words, if one wanted to apply self-determination to solve this issue, then at least in needs to respect the most basic principles of democracy and include every individual holding a right in the given situation, in this case both Argentines and Falkland Islanders, not Falkland Islanders exclusively, as that would be unjust, undemocratic, irresponsible, among other facts. The Welsh community living in Chubut is in the exact same situation as Falkland Islanders, they have the right to participate of Argentine democracy, but not seceding from Argentina. British judge and ex-president of the International Court of Justice Rosalyn Higgins shares the same understanding accordingly to the relevant United Nations resolutions that develop the principle of self-determination and the precedents established by the court itself. She refers to this in the following words:
_One further issue on self-determination remains to be mentioned. It follows from the principle of territorial integrity. It is often the case that self-determination is part of the armoury of rhetoric in what is essentially a dispute about territorial title. Both the case of Gibraltar and that of the Falklands illustrate the point. Title to Gibraltar is disputed between the United Kingdom and Spain. Title to the Falklands-Malvinas is disputed between the United Kingdom and Argentina. From the perspective of the United Kingdom, self-determination has a pertinent role to play. These are dependent territories, whose peoples have been given the opportunity to decide if they would like to remain in the status quo or not. From the British point of view, it is important that the wishes of the peoples of the territories be heard and heeded. But from the point of view of the Argentinians and Spanish, that is an irrelevance. If the territory concerned belongs to Argentina, or to Spain, then the inhabitants have no right of self-determination - any more than would Spanish or Argentinian nationals happening to live in the United Kingdom._
_Judge Hardy Dillard's famous dictum in the Western Sahara case has been much quoted: "[i]t is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people"._
_Attractive an aphorism though it is, it still has to be said that the territorial issue does come first. Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have a right of self-determination (other than the ongoing right that all citizens of those countries have to determine their own political status and economic development). As neither country [Morocco and Mauritania] had sovereignty over Western Sahara, that territory was indeed a colonial dependency of Spain, whose peoples were entitled to exercise self-determination and choose their own destiny. It necessarily follows from all that I have said that I do not share the view of those who see the current problems of Hong Kong as problems of self-determination. At least so far as the leased territories are concerned, it is clear that title lies with China and must revert there in 1997. The issue in my view is to secure the generality of human rights of all in Hong Kong after that time rather than to insist that they have been denied the right of self-determination._
As you can very clearly understand from her words, if a leased non-self-governing territory must be returned to its legitimate state upon the termination of the lease, then an usurped non-self-governing territory more so. Apart from that, the Falkland Islands are a territoy in dispute and the International Court of Justice has been very clear about this, only two things matter: sovereignty, which belongs to only one of the populations that claims the territory, and the immediate human rights of the population within the disputed territory. As long as those human rights are guaranteed, then the population has no say on the determination of sovereignty, only the title determines sovereignty and in this case title lies with the Argentine Republic. Besides, the Falkland Islands are no different than other territorial disputes solved by the court or other means, there were territories with hundreds of thousands of people, even millions, and none of those cases involved self-determination, because in those cases self-determination is unjust and thus illegal, in fact, using it to do what you propose is expressly prohibited by international law. Those territories in dispute were far more populated and inhabited by far more generations than in the Falkland Islands, what makes the latter different? Nothing at all, without mentioning that the population of the islands is a mostly artificial population that fluctuates according to the colonial needs of the administering state, the United Kingdom, which makes the application of self-determination to this case even more controversial to say the least. Also, it is not unique. This kind of territorial disputes end up with the creation of autonomous administrative divisions meant for the population of the territory to be respected in its way of life, guaranteeing the protection of their human rights, but within the territorial context of the state to which the territory legitimately belongs. The most famous cases of this are that of Eritrea (Ethiopia-Italy), the Aland Islands (Finland-Sweden), among others, in fact, that's one of the proposals to end the colonial situation of the Falkland Islands, this is, creating a "special province" within the Argentine Republic exclusively for Falkland Islanders.
@Johnny Golightly It is not hard to spot the difference at all, in fact, there is a crucial difference that you are conveniently ignoring in order to put the cases of Argentina and the Falkland Islands at the same level, which is not only fallacious, but hypocritical; but I won't point fingers because perhaps you are genuinly not perceiving it, I prefer you being an ignorant rather than a liar. The land that would become independent as Argentina was conquered by Spain and liberated by Argentines, Argentina is the result of a creole people fighting together for their independence from Spanish colonialism. Even the declaration of independence of Argentina was written in four languages: Spanish obviously and three other precolonial languages, Aymara, Quechua and Guaraní. The Argentine government appointed figures of authority of precolonial ancestry since the very beginning of its independent existence, including provincial governors, among them Casimiro Biguá, an Aónikenk leader, main chief of the Patagonian territories, who considered himself and his people Argentines and recognized Argentine sovereignty over his territories with a ceremonial act after being appointed by the Argentine government as governor of his territories from the Atlantic up to the Andes and he defended those territories against Chilean attempts to settle there. His mother before him, the Queen of the Strait of Magellan, was even invited to a party in the Falkland Islands by Luis Vernet, one of the last Argentine governors of the Falkland Islands before the British usurpation. And, most importantly, it was the Argentine government the one that appointed Pablo Areguatí as the third governor of the Falkland Islands, a veteran of the Argentine War of Independence from Guaraní ancestry. This means that even the first contact of precolonial peoples with the islands was thanks to Argentina, and a lot more could be said. Precolonial peoples were considered an integral part of the Argentine people since the very beginning and they helped establishing it through its struggle for independence against its colonial captor. On the other hand, the Falkland Islands were usurped by the United Kingdom and they must be liberated from British colonialism by the process of decolonization started by the United Nations accordingly with international law.
Just in case you were lost, the difference is clear and crucial: Spain gained the territoy from precolonial peoples, Argentina regained the land from Spanish colonialism. The United Kingdom gained the land from Argentina, the only question that remains is, when will Argentina regain the land from British colonialism?
Apart from that evident difference that apparently you missed, international law focuses on states and the protection of human rights, so even if there had been a state in what today is Argentina before the Spanish conquest, which is not the case (except for the Tawantinsuyu that barely occupied Argentine territory), then that state does no longer exist and it is impossible to make justice for it. On the other hand, Argentina still exists and it demands its territorial rights to be respected accordingly with international law. As long as the human rights of precolonial peoples and the human rights of the population of the Falkland Islands are respected, then international law focuses on existing states.
@Johnny Golightly Funny to you subjectively for some irrelevant reason, true objectively, that's what is actually relevant.
@Johnny Golightly That's history, not a description of history. If you don't like it, then that's not my problem. Maybe you are pissed because you tried to compare two situations that are completely unrelated as an argument. I am sorry you don't like the difference that you couldn't spot, even though it is a crucial difference...